BNUMBER:  B-279221; B-279221.2 
DATE:  May 19, 1998
TITLE: Ideal Electronic Security Company, B-279221; B-279221.2, May
19, 1998
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective 
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:Ideal Electronic Security Company

File:     B-279221; B-279221.2

Date:May 19, 1998

Kenneth Martin, Esq., Martin & Rylander, for the protester.
Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., and Drew W. Marrocco, Esq., Sonnenschein, 
Nath & Rosenthal, for SCIENTECH, Inc., an intervenor.
Diane M. Canzano, Esq., Department of the Treasury, for the agency.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that contracting agency improperly failed to evaluate 
proposals reasonably and in accordance with the solicitation's 
evaluation criteria is denied where the record does not support the 
allegations; a protester's mere disagreement with the agency's 
conclusions does not render the evaluation unreasonable.

2.  Allegation that agency misled protester to curtail price reduction 
in its best and final offer (BAFO) is denied where record shows that 
the protester was merely advised that its price was competitive and 
its escalation rates appeared reasonable and within anticipated 
increases; protester's determination as to what extent to lower its 
BAFO price reflects its own business judgment.

DECISION

Ideal Electronic Security Company protests the award of a contract to 
SCIENTECH, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. BEP-98-05(N), 
issued by the Department of Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing 
(BEP) for the acquisition of the BEP security system maintenance, 
installation, operation, and engineering support services.  Ideal 
challenges the agency's evaluation of Ideal's proposal and asserts 
that the agency conducted misleading discussions which caused Ideal 
not to lower its final price to the full extent that it could have.

We deny the protest.

The BEP security system consists of a Monitor Dynamics Inc. (MDI) 
access control and intrusion detection security system (ACAMS), 
American Dynamics Closed Circuit Television System (CCTV) and an 
Imaging Technology Corporation (ITC) video badging system.  The MDI 
security system is an alarm monitor system which operates through a 
central computerized alarm monitor and a series of peripheral alarm 
devices.  The CCTV system permits monitoring and recording through 
various stages of production, transportation and storage.  The ITC 
system produces and maintains the integrity of BEP's selected access 
control security badges and interfaces with the MDI system to allow 
for the transfer of badge holder data to the MDI system where the 
badge holder will then be specifically and separately programmed for 
the required access rights.

The RFP, issued on October 27, 1997, contemplated the award of a 
fixed-price contract with labor hour and requirement line items for 
the operation and monitoring of the security system, including the 
MDI, CCTV, ITC and fire management system (FMS).  The RFP stated that 
a minimum of 35 employees were required as security system operators 
and required offerors to submit resumes for key personnel that clearly 
demonstrated experience with security engineering design, installation 
maintenance, testing, training, and systems operation.  Offerors were 
also required to provide minimum qualification statements for all 
other proposed personnel who would be performing under the contract.  
The RFP advised that award would be made on the basis of the proposal 
determined to be most advantageous to the government, price and 
technical factors considered.  

The RFP provided for a two phase evaluation process.  Under Phase I, 
proposals were evaluated on the following three factors:  (a) 
experience of proposed personnel; (b) corporate experience; and (c) 
past performance.  In order to be included in the competitive range 
for Phase I and proceed to Phase II, offerors had to receive a pass 
rating for criteria (a) and (b).  Under Phase II, offerors were 
required to give an oral presentation and the proposals were evaluated 
on two factors, management plan (62.5 points) and organizational 
experience (37.5 points), each of which included several subfactors.  

Proposals were received from four firms, all of which were included in 
the competitive range on the basis of the following Phase I evaluation 
results:

     Offeror        Technical Score          Price           
     SCIENTECH                Pass      $15,610,344
     Ideal                    Pass      $16,130,956
     A                        Pass      $13,174,851
     B                        Pass      $14,235,432

By letters dated December 5, offerors were notified of their inclusion 
in the competitive range and of the oral presentation dates.  In its 
letter, Ideal was advised that it needed to address the minimum 
qualification statements for all proposed personnel.  Among other 
things, Ideal was asked to provide information on personnel experience 
in maintenance and in operation of the MDI ACAMS, experience in the 
installation and the maintenance of the CCTV system and corporate 
experience of the subcontractor in the operation of the MDI ACAMS.  
After the oral presentations, the proposals were reevaluated.  The 
results of the Phase II evaluation were as follows:

     Offeror        Technical Score          Price  
     SCIENTECH             97.5/100     $15,610,344
     Ideal                 85.1/100     $16,130,956
     A                     77.0/100     $13,174,851
     B[1]                  17.5/100     $14,235,432

On December 22, further discussions were conducted with each offeror 
in the competitive range for Phase II.  The agency reports that since 
all technical issues were resolved during oral presentations, no 
technical issues were addressed at this time.  The agency also reports 
that during these discussions, offerors were provided the Department 
of Labor projected wage rate increases to ensure that each offeror 
would consider these projected increases in formulating its Best and 
Final Offer (BAFO).  By letter dated December 22, each competitive 
range offeror was requested to submit its BAFO by January 5, 1998.  
The rankings after receipt of BAFOs were as follows:

     Offeror        Technical Score     BAFO Price
     SCIENTECH           97.5           $14,812,550
     Ideal               85.1           $15,596,912
     A                   77.0           $13,298,570

In using these evaluation results to make the best value 
determination, the contracting officer states that because SCIENTECH's 
proposal was higher technically rated than Ideal's and SCIENTECH 
proposed a lower price, the proposal was viewed to be clearly superior 
to Ideal's and the best value analysis was focused on a comparison of 
the proposal of SCIENTECH and the lower-priced one submitted by 
Offeror A.  On January 29, award was made to SCIENTECH as representing 
the best value to the government.  On February 2, Ideal received a 
debriefing.  On February 9, Ideal filed this protest with our Office, 
which it supplemented on February 12.  

Ideal protests that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal 
because the method of evaluation overemphasized the need for 
site-specific experience with respect to the CCTV system and the ITC 
video badging system, thus Ideal's proposal was improperly downgraded 
based on an unstated evaluation requirement.

In reviewing protests concerning the evaluation of proposals, we will 
examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it had a reasonable 
basis and was consistent with the evaluation criteria listed in the 
RFP.  Pemco Aeroplex Inc., B-239672.5, Apr. 12, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  367 
at 4.  A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation is 
not itself sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably.  
Correa Enters., Inc., B-241912, Mar. 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  249 at 3.  
Here, the record establishes that the evaluation was reasonable and 
consistent with the RFP evaluation criteria.

Ideal's protest focuses on its belief that the BEP evaluators did not 
properly credit Ideal for the work it performed as the subcontractor 
responsible for installing the MDI system under a previous contract.  
Ideal also argues that BEP improperly downgraded its proposal for a 
lack of subcontractor experience.  According to Ideal, the RFP did not 
require offerors to propose a subcontractor plan, but rather required 
offerors to demonstrate corporate experience of subcontractors only 
when the offeror proposed subcontractor performance of major portions 
of the specified work.   

The record shows that the evaluators recognized that Ideal had 
installed MDI equipment at BEP and accorded Ideal appropriate credit 
for this effort.  While Ideal demonstrated experience in the 
installation of the MDI system, Ideal did not demonstrate experience 
in the operation of the MDI system nor did it demonstrate experience 
with the CCTV system or the ITC video badging system.  In this regard, 
section L-12 of the RFP stated that "BEP is specifically looking for 
contractors experienced with engineering design, development, 
procurement, installation, maintenance, testing, training, and systems 
operation of electronic/computerized security systems and equipment," 
(bold and undeline font omitted) and provided for the evaluation of 
offeror experience on the basis of 3 to 5 contracts that most closely 
"match BEP's requirement for Security System Operation, Maintenance, 
Installation, and Technical Support Services."  Ideal's argument that 
BEP improperly emphasized the importance of these other security 
systems in its evaluation is contradicted by these provisions and by 
the fact that the RFP scope of work specifically stated that the 
performance of work required operation/monitoring of the BEP's 
security systems which included the MDI, CCTV, ITC video badging and 
the FMS systems, all of which were listed as integral parts of the BEP 
security system.  In this respect, offerors were required to provide 
proposed staffing plans and a description of resources needed to 
successfully operate and monitor BEP's total security system.  
Accordingly, it was appropriate for the agency to evaluate Ideal's 
experience with respect to the total security system, and Ideal's MDI 
equipment installation did not, by itself, evidence the full range of 
experience called for by the RFP.

Ideal also maintains that the agency improperly downgraded Ideal for a 
lack of subcontractor experience with providing security system 
operators when Ideal had   made it clear to BEP it planned to perform 
most, if not all, of the specified work with Ideal personnel.  The 
record shows that Ideal's proposal was downgraded in this respect 
mainly because of weakness concerning the security system operators 
requirement, with respect to which the agency concluded that Ideal 
left unclear how and with what personnel Ideal would meet the operator 
requirement.  Additionally, based on the contents of Ideal's technical 
proposal and its responses to questions posed during the oral 
presentation, the evaluators concluded that Ideal planned to 
subcontract the operator requirement to a company inexperienced in 
providing security system operators.  In its proposal, under 
subcontractor management, Ideal named its proposed subcontractor and 
specifically stated that the subcontractor provides personnel for 
Ideal as a teaming partner/subcontractor.  Moreover, under the scope 
of services Ideal stated it would perform, providing security system 
operators was not listed, and Ideal did not provide minimum 
qualifications statements for its proposed security system operators.  
In its letter to Ideal scheduling the oral presentation, BEP stated 
that Ideal needed to address the minimum qualification statements for 
all proposed personnel performing under the contract and provide 
information concerning experience in maintenance and in operation of 
the MDI, and the corporate experience of the subcontractor in the 
operation of the MDI.  During its oral presentation, Ideal was asked 
about its subcontractor's specific experience in providing security 
system operators and Ideal responded that its subcontractor has not 
provided security operator personnel in the past and that Ideal would 
train the security operators.  

The offeror has the burden of submitting an adequately written 
proposal, and an offeror's mere disagreement with the agency's 
judgment concerning the adequacy of the proposal is not sufficient to 
establish that the agency acted unreasonably.  Caldwell Consulting 
Assocs., B-242767, B-242767.2, June 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  530 
at 6.  Here, the record demonstrates that the agency's evaluation of 
Ideal's proposal was fair and consistent with the evaluation criteria.  
Ideal was given appropriate credit for its familiarity with the MDI 
system; however, Ideal did not have significant experience with the 
other parts of BEP's security system and failed to provide information 
showing how it would meet the system operators requirement.  Moreover, 
notwithstanding these shortcomings, Ideal's proposal received a score 
of 85.1 out of a possible 100 points, including relatively high scores 
in the experience category based primarily on its experience 
installing the MDI system.[2]

Ideal also argues that it was misled by the agency during discussions 
into lowering its price less that it otherwise would have in its BAFO.  
Ideal contends that, during discussions, BEP informed Ideal that its 
prices as proposed in its original offer appeared to fall within 
anticipated increases, which suggested to Ideal that it need not lower 
its price proposal.  In this regard, the agency has submitted a 
declaration from the contract specialist who negotiated with Ideal, in 
which he states that he told Ideal that its price was competitive and 
was determined to be fair and reasonable, but did not advise Ideal not 
to lower its price.  On the contrary, the contract specialist states 
that he reminded Ideal that a best value determination would be 
performed and recommended to Ideal that it try to be more competitive 
with respect to its price.  Ideal's representative states that he does 
not recall the contract specialist's advice to try to be more 
competitive, but does not assert that the contract specialist told 
Ideal not to lower its price.  Essentially, Ideal is merely arguing 
that the contracting agency's statement that Ideal's offer was 
reasonable and within the anticipated wage increases indicated that 
Ideal need not lower its price.  We do not view this statement as a 
recommendation (much less a directive) that Ideal not lower its price; 
the record shows that Ideal did in fact lower its price in its BAFO, 
and the extent to which Ideal lowered its price was a reflection of 
its own business judgment.  See Crestmont Cleaning Serv. & Supply Co., 
Inc., et al., 
B-254486 et al., Dec. 22, 1993, 93-2 CPD  para.  336 at 8.  The record 
simply does not substantiate Ideal's position that its BAFO pricing 
resulted from misleading advice that had been provided by the agency. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States      

1. This offeror's proposal was excluded from the Phase II competitive 
range.

2. In its comments submitted in response to the agency report, Ideal 
argues that if BEP found informational inadequacies regarding Ideal's 
proposed personnel and subcontractor plan, BEP should have conducted 
further discussions.  As noted above, the contracting officer's 
December 5, 1997 letter to Ideal advised that additional information 
was needed concerning the qualifications of the proposed personnel 
experience in maintenance and in operation of the MDI system and also 
concerning the corporate experience of the subcontractor in operation 
of the MDI.  Additionally, during oral presentations, Ideal was again 
asked about its subcontractor's experience with providing security 
system operators.  An agency is
not required to "spoon-feed" offerors.  Research Analysis and 
Maintenance, Inc., 
B-242836.4, Oct. 29, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  387 at 6.  In evaluating whether 
there has been sufficient disclosure during discussions, the focus is 
not on whether the agency described its concerns in such detail that 
there could be no doubt as to their identification and nature, but 
whether the agency imparted enough information to the offeror to 
afford it a fair and reasonable opportunity in the context of the 
procurement to respond to the areas of weakness in its proposal.  See 
Aydin Computer and Monitor Div., Aydin Corp., B-249539, Dec. 2, 1992, 
93-1 CPD  para.  135 
at 11.  While the agency appears to have satisfied its obligations 
under this standard, even if discussions had resulted in higher 
ratings under those factors concerning personnel qualifications and 
utilization, Ideal would have not been in line for award.  If Ideal 
received the maximum possible points for these subfactors, the agency 
points out that Ideal's total technical score would have increased by 
11.7 points to 96.8, which would remain below the score of 97.5 
received by SCIENTECH for its lower-priced proposal.  In its comments, 
Ideal does not dispute this rescoring of its proposal and does not 
argue that had more precise discussions occurred it would have been 
able to satisfy the agency's concerns in such a manner as to make its 
proposal sufficiently superior to the awardee's lower-priced proposal 
to warrant award.  Because competitive prejudice is an essential 
element of a viable protest, Lithos Restoration, Ltd., B-247003.2, 
Apr. 22, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  379 at 5, Ideal's allegation does not 
provide a valid basis to sustain its protest.